A Wickes manager sued for unfair dismissal after she was fired for taking cocaine at work as a pick-me-up while she was hungover.
Staff noticed Jasmin Unsted was unusually ‘quiet’ after a heavy night out which saw her drink a bottle of Malibu and take cocaine until 3am, an employment tribunal has heard.
But after a spate of frequent trips to the work toilet, Ms Unsted appeared to be back to her ‘loud and chatty self’.
A colleague then spotted white powder on the windowsill of a toilet cubicle that she had used, it was heard.
Ms Unsted declined to take a drugs test – saying that she had snorted cocaine the night before but not at work – but was fired from Wickes, with the firm’s policy stating a refusal was classed as a positive result.
She then tried to sue the DIY retailer for unfair dismissal but has had her case rejected by an employment tribunal.
She lost claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, related to her ADHD.
The tribunal, held in London, heard that Ms Unsted was employed as a duty manager at Wickes from March 2021.
Staff noticed Jasmin Unsted was unusually ‘quiet’ after a heavy night out which saw her drink a bottle of Malibu and take cocaine until 3am, an employment tribunal has heard
Ms Unsted was given a final written warning in August 2023 because of unrelated incidents.
In February 2024, operations manager Rebecca Carter noticed that Ms Unsted was behaving differently on shift.
She told the tribunal: ‘On 10 February 2024, I noticed [Ms Unsted] displaying unusual behaviour.
‘Normally loud, bubbly, and highly focused, constantly working and keeping up a fast pace, she was quiet, unfocused, and less interactive with the team.
‘She was pacing around the store and made frequent trips to the toilet, more than once an hour.
‘These trips were unusual because, although she worked on the ground floor, she repeatedly went upstairs to use the toilet, which drew my attention.’
When asked if she was alright, Ms Carter told how Ms Unsted ‘shrugged it off’ and told her she would ‘be okay after some caffeine’.
Ms Unsted told the tribunal that while in the bathroom she had sat against the outside wall of a toilet cubicle and leaned against the wall, closing her eyes in an attempt to ‘compose and prepare herself for the rest of the shift’.
Ms Carter said: ‘At around 2pm, I entered the female toilets and saw [Ms Unsted] leaving the far cubicle with a windowsill.
‘I said hello and walked past her to use the far cubicle myself. [Ms Unsted] then went into the cubicle next to me.
‘She was loud and chatty, the opposite of her behaviour in the morning.
‘I cannot recall exactly what she was saying, but we both came out of the toilets at the same time.
‘[Ms Unsted] didn’t flush, but I didn’t think much of it.
‘As I went to wash my hands, she returned to the cubicle I had used, carrying a tissue, and we continued to have a conversation.’
Ms Carter said she found ‘what appeared to be remnants from a line of cocaine’ on the windowsill of the toilet that Ms Unsted had been in, and she reported this to the Wickes employee relations team.
Ms Unsted claimed that photographs of what Ms Carter had seen had been doctored, but the tribunal accepted them as genuine.
A drug testing technician was called in and Ms Unsted asked them if her drinking and drug taking the night before would result in a positive test.
She was informed this was likely and that if she refused to take the test it would be seen as a positive result. This would likely mean she would be sacked, as Wickes has a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol and drugs.
Ms Unsted refused to take the test, as her partner told her over the phone that he didn’t believe they had reasonable grounds for making her do it.
In an investigation meeting a few days later, Ms Unsted said that the night before her shift she took one line of cocaine at 9pm and drank a 70cl bottle of Malibu.
She said: ‘Drinking until 3am 70cl bottle. Felt tired and ropey, not hungover. But I didn’t feel like I was 18 anymore.’
Ms Unsted denied taking drugs while on shift, and claimed she was being discriminated against because of her ADHD.
She said: ‘The description given to me of my unusual behaviour was just a list of my ADHD symptoms and what is my normal behaviour.’
But the tribunal found that Wickes had no prior knowledge about Ms Unsted having ADHD, which she had not disclosed to the company before this stage.
In a disciplinary hearing, she said she ‘should not have been asked to undertake a test and that without her admission nobody would have been aware of her cocaine use’.
Ms Unsted was fired for gross misconduct in May 2024 because she admitted to taking a line of cocaine the evening before her shift and she had refused to take part in a drug and alcohol test, which was considered as a positive result.
She appealed against the decision to sack her, claiming that she had been ‘set up’ by Ms Carter following a recent deterioration of their relationship, but her appeal was dismissed.
Employment Judge Lise Burge said: ‘Even if the Tribunal had decided that the dismissal was unfair, which we did not, the Tribunal’s view is that [Ms Unsted]’s conduct was culpable and blameworthy.
‘She took cocaine the night before her shift.
‘Cocaine is illegal and the safety implications of taking drugs and mixing drugs and alcohol is clear in [Wickes]’s Alcohol & Drugs policy.
‘Even if the white powder in the toilet was not cocaine belonging to her, and we make no findings on whether it was or was not, it was reasonable for [Wickes] to request a drug test.
‘[Ms Unsted] refused to take it as she believed she would have cocaine in her system. She caused the dismissal.’
Her claims for discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
